State v. Vore
2013 Ohio 1490
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Vore robbed Fifth Third Bank, presenting a note and taking $9,281; he was identified by video and various witnesses.
- Police connected Vore to the crime via motel surveillance, Biggs grocery surveillance, and a related automobile description.
- Handwriting analysis linked the demand note to Vore; he had been in Kentucky arrested two weeks later on unrelated charges.
- A jury found Vore guilty of robbery and grand theft; sentences were merged and the court imposed a five-year term with post-release conditions.
- Vore filed postconviction relief and a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence; the trial court denied without a hearing.
- On appeal, the court consolidated the two appeals and affirmed the denials, addressing multiple assignments of error related to postconviction and new-trial claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion denying postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing | Vore asserts ineffective assistance and related grounds merit a hearing | Vore failed to show prejudice or substantial grounds for relief | No abuse; denial affirmed |
| Whether the court adequately stated findings of fact and conclusions of law | Findings were insufficient to review grounds for relief | The nine-page entry was adequate and targeted to the issues | Findings were adequate; assignment overruled |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying leave to file a delayed new-trial motion based on newly discovered evidence/Brady | Biggs video constitutes newly discovered Brady material warranting a new trial | Video was not newly discovered, Brady was not violated, and result would be same | Denied; no abuse of discretion; no Brady violation; no change in outcome |
| Whether Brady and suppression arguments regarding the Biggs video entitle relief | State suppressed favorable evidence impacting guilt/punishment | No suppression occurred; video was not new discovery; defense had opportunity to use it | No Brady violation; video acknowledged; no impact on outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1995) (material Brady evidence and reasonable probability standard)
- State v. LaMar, 95 Ohio St.3d 181 (Ohio 2002) (Brady standard and due-process considerations in suppression)
- State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (Ohio 1999) (foundational standards for postconviction relief and findings of fact)
- State v. Petro, 148 Ohio St. 505 (Ohio 1947) (new-trial based on newly discovered evidence framework)